"The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India." So says Article 44 of the Constitution of India. It was introduced as a Directive Princ...

As of this moment, there are more than two crore cases pending across district courts in India, two-thirds of which are criminal in nature. Ten percent of these cases have been pending for over 10 years, and at the current rate of disposal, it is expected to take the district courts 10 years to clear the backlog. As a law student observing proceedings in all levels of the judiciary, the method of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) seems to me a shining beacon of light.

The Aarushi Talwar case, the Nirbhaya rape case, the Sheena Bora murder case and most recently the Kanhaiya Kumar incident share a frightening denominator -- that of "trial by media". The media is fast rising as a "janta ki adalat", trying cases and delivering verdicts of its own volition, undermining the administration of criminal justice in India.

The judgement of the Supreme Court in <em>Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India</em> conferred an overarching interpretation on the law of defamation, undermining free speech and rendering the law vulnerable to abuse. The court has upheld the constitutionality of criminal defamation, overlooking its historical background and the contemporary challenges to its application. Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant held that defamation is a reasonable restriction to the freedom of speech, and that imprisonment is a proportionate consequence of a deviation.